Deeplinks Blog posts about Patents

The patent office has issued its first ruling in our challenge to Personal Audio’s so-called podcasting patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that we have established a “reasonable likelihood” that we will prevail, based on two key pieces of “prior art” evidence. This isn’t a final ruling, but it is an important step forward.

Since the SHIELD Act was introduced two years ago, momentum has been building for patent reform in Congress. And when the House overwhelmingly passed the Innovation Act in December, it seemed real legislation might be close at hand. Since then, the Senate has been thrashing out its version of a patent bill. We need to keep up the pressure to make sure that any final deal includes meaningful reforms that will slow the flood of patent troll litigation. With the Senate about to break for recess, the next few days could be crucial.

Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins issued his written ruling granting EFF's motion to quash. It is available here.

UPDATE: March 5, 2014

The court held a hearing today on the subpoena. Good news: Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins agreed with EFF and struck down Personal Audio's demands. The judge will issue a written order shortly; we will publish as soon as we have it.

Personal Audio can try to appeal the decision, so this fight may continue. But for now: victory!

This is a big week in the world of patents. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, a case about the eligibility of computer-implemented inventions. The outcome of this case has big implications on the future of software patents, the often broad and vague patents stockpiled by trolls and tech companies alike.

This week, EFF joined over 5,600 individuals in a letter (PDF) pressing the Senate for meaningful patent reform—reform that goes beyond the current Senate proposals and provides strong fixes to the patent troll problem.

As we wrote:

We need to increase transparency in the litigation process, starting with demand letters and patent ownership; we need to control the costs of litigation by, when appropriate, shifting fees and limiting expensive discovery; we need better programs for challenging bad patents; and we need to protect end-users and consumers.